spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (05/19/88)
In article <669@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (News super user at STL) writes: >Newgroup's recently appeared for two x400 news groups, although there has >been no discussion (so far as I've seen) on them, and no postings have appeared >here. Were these newgroup's a mistake, and should I send out rmgroups? Those groups are not a mistake. They are proper "inet" groups, and they carry the corresponding ARPA mailing lists. >The new groups have 'inet' distribution (as does this posting). What is the >mechanism for adding new inet groups? Hopefully it is simpler than the >current system for Usenet groups, but there should be some sort of discussion, >and hopefully an agreement that those backbone sites that accept inet >groups (including mcvax) will distribute them. If the last is not the case, >the new group will not propagate in Europe. "inet" groups are administered by Erik Fair (ucbvax!usenet or ucbarpa!usenet). He creates the groups to correspond to *exisiting* Arpa mailing lists to provide a gateway and distribution mechanism. The intent is that sites exchanging the groups will have their local users unsubscribe from the mailing lists in favor of the inet groups, thus (potentially) reducing the volume of mail on the Internet. There does not seem to be much need for discussion or voting on these, as I see it; if others disagree, let's discuss it. So far, to my knowledge, backbone sites carrying inet (and ddn) groups have been willing to carry all the groups, especially since it helps unclog our e-mail supply! -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf